Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Scully, And Intel vs. Motorola
fsharp writes "I've heard too many comments suggesting that Apple should have moved to Intel (x86). The Register has an article exploring John Scully's recent comments about his failure to move the Mac to x86. Scully critiques his decisions based entirely on hindsight, and in doing so, identifies Dell as a the chief competitor and the way Apple could have slayed this evil dragon would have been to move to Intel early on in his tenure. Not so fast. Hindsight can be 20/20, however it can also be quite myopic if one suffers from selective memory. The article does a good job of examining the options available at the time when Apple rewrote the MacOS for the Intel x86. How safe a bet or great a risk would it have been for Apple to switch, given the quality of chips offered (at that time) from Intel?"
At the time that the Mac moved to PPC there is no way that Intel could have offered such a seamless transition. The ability of the PPC to emulate the 68k at good speed was what made the transition work. If Apple had tried to move to the x86 platform they would have lost a lot of customers with a big investment in software as the x86 could not emulate the 68k at usable speed.
Using an alternative archetecture has also allowed Apple to hold on to its uniqueness, which has in turn guarded it somewhat from fierce comparison to the x86 crowd.
No-one in the PC business saw Dell coming, if Apple had been just another x86 vendor with a nice OS they would be facing the same problems as HP, Compaq etc did when confronted by Dell's better supply chain model.
I think that Sculley is being remarkably revisionist in his views. The article points out a lot of the folly in his musings.
The G5 and the relationship with IBM is more than enough to now justify the choie of the PPC architecture.
I want to use these Mod points but I can't find anything Interesting, Informative or Insightful on Slashdot.
As Feynman says and Dell shows, here's always room at the bottom. As the existence of Apple shows, there usually is room at the top, too. In between, that's where the crowd is. To move to an intel platform is not the issue for Apple, and it never was. Not becoming just part of the crowd when doing so is.
Look at SUN. They made the best machines you could buy for internet applications at a time back in the nineties, and charged you a lot of money for it. Today the rest of the world has caught up, we all stack our racks with linux pizzaboxen now, and SUN is in trouble. The company has to decide: is SUN a hardware company? that would mean investing a lot in the development of SPARC, killing the Solaris x86 line and fighting Linux, or move entirely to Intel, giving up software development altogether and become like Mike. Or is SUN a software company? that would mean cancelling further SPARC development and concentrating on Solaris and Java. Eventually, this would kill SPARC.
Strengthening the hardware section in SUN would hurt the software guys, and beefing up the software department could easily hurt the hardware sales. Not a good strategic position. Apple could easily be (or have been) caught in the same situation. To compete with Dell you have to become like Dell. If you don't want to do this, you must find a different market for yourself. Or be just part of the crowd.
After reading yet another "How John Sculley fucked up" article I feel I can say few things. The first is that the board of Pepsi is, with the same hindsight that John Sculley now has, probably enormously glad that he buggered off to Apple in the 80's and didn't stay at Pepsi where they would have had to fire him a few years later for plain apocryphal business decision making.
Because John Sculley, with his wonderful hindsight, still doesn't "get it" and that says a lot about him. His absolutely idiotic remarks about Apple moving to x86 are worth less today than they were when Apple had actually ported Mac OS to x86 in a project called "Startrek" in 1994, only to call it off at the last moment.
The Brand is everything with Apple. Check it out. Go to the website, go to an Applestore. The design of the hardware, the design of the software, the design of Steve Jobs' stage appearances, the design of the Website, the design of the Apple store, everything is made to fit into the brand. There is practically NO other company that does this as well as Apple. No one. Nada. Zilch. Or why do you think that mac OSX doesn't have themes and skins as part of the basic OS? (Yes, I know that 3rd party people make skins, but they are not endorsed or supported by Apple)
I hate car analogies, but in terms of branding, Apple is the BMW of computing. The designs are timeless in a way that makes my 4 year old Lombard Powerbook as interesting to look at as my 2 year old Titanium Powerbook (Ever notice that Apple used two shades and textures of black plastic in the Lombard/Pismo design?). It's a design that makes a 4 year old B&W Tower interesting and a design that makes you stop and stare when you see a G5 from the outside as well as the inside.
It's something that "cheap and ugly as you can be as long as it's fast" tech nuts and ex executives of bottled sugar water don't "get".
Technically, it would have all been possible, and in 1990 Apple stood a good chance of beating Microsoft at its own game as all the graphical applications would have been forced to move over to x86 along with Apple, and Mac OS 7 was way better than Windows 3.0, but by 1994, when the "Startrek" project was underway, it was already too late. Apple had gotten lost in the future OS dealings with Taligent, Pink, Starttrek and the miserable Copland effort.
Buying NeXT was the best thing NeXT (excuse the pun) ever did. And while the clones being lost was sad. Apple would not have been able to turn its business around with the clone competition. It would have diluted the Brand, which was something that Jobs understood correctly in doing.
Today Apple could in no way switch again. They came very close to losing Adobe and Macromedia with the switch to OSX and would almost certainly lose them if they switched to x86 (or Itanium or Opteron or whatever). Those applications are part of Apple's bread and butter business and Apple knows it. But the G5 and the coming G3 with Altivec look good for the near future despite or because of Intel vapourware announcements to scare of opteron customers.
Selected quotes from a confidential memorandum from Bill Gates to John Scully of Apple dated June 25, 1985.
Source: Wired Magazine, November 1997, page 126-128.
A memo on "Apple Licensing of Mac Technology."
Apple's stated position in personal computer is innovative technology leader. This position implies that Apple must create a standard on new, advanced technology. They must establish a "revolutionary" architecture, which necessarily implies new development incompatible with existing architectures.
Apple must make Macintosh a standard. But no personal computer company, not even IBM, can create a standard without independent support. Even though Apple realized this, they have not been able to gain the independent support required to be perceived as a standard.
The significant investment (especially independent support) in a "standard personal computer" results in an incredible momentum for its architecture. Specifically, the IBM PC architecture continues to receive huge investment and gains additional momentum [...] The investment in the IBM architecture includes development of differentiated compatibles, software, and peripherals; user and sales channel education; and most importantly, attitudes and perceptions that are not easily changed.
Any deficiencies in the IBM architecture are quickly eliminated by independent support [...] The closed architecture prevents similar independent investment in the Macintosh. The IBM architecture, when compared to the Macintosh, probably has more than 100 times the engineering resources applied to it when investment of compatible manufacturers is included. The ratio becomes even greater when the manufacturers of expansion cards are included.
Conclusion:
As the independent investment in a "standard" architecture grows, so does the momentum for that architecture. The industry has reached the point where it is now impossible for Apple to create a standard out of their innovative technology without support from, and the resulting credibility of, other personal computer manufacturers. Thus APPLE MUST OPEN THE MACINTOSH ARCHITECTURE TO HAVE THE INDEPENDENT SUPPORT REQUIRED TO GAIN MOMENTUM AND ESTABLISH A STANDARD. [emphasis mine]
The Mac has not become a standard:
The Macintosh has failed to attain the critical mass necessary for the technology to be considered a long term contender.
[...]
Recommendation:
Apple should license Macintosh technology to 3-5 significant manufacturers for the development of "Mac Compatibles".
US manufacturers and contacts: ideal companies - in addition to credibility, they have large account sales force that can establish the Mac architecture in larger companies:
- AT&T, James Edwards - Wang, An Wang - Digital Equipment Corporation, Ken Olsen - Texas Instruments, Jerry Junkins - Hewlett Packard, John Young
Other companies:
[ list of companies and contact names deleted ]
Apple should license the Macintosh technology to US and European companies in a way that allows them to go to other companies for manufacturing. Sony, Kyocera [...] are good candidates for OEM manufacturing of Mac compatibles.
MICROSOFT IS VERY WILLING TO HELP APPLE IMPLEMENT THIS STRATEGY. We are familiar with the key manufacturers, their strategies and strengths. We also have a great deal of experience in OEMing system software.
Rationale:
1. The companies that license Mac technology would add credibility to the Macintosh architecture.
2. These companies would broaden the available product offerings through their "Mac-compatible" product lines:
- They would each innovate and add features to the basic systems [...]
-